Background
Dallas Michael Acoff, proceeding pro se, sought to appeal a district court order denying relief on his counseled motion under Section twenty-eight United States Code, Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five. The underlying case involved a plea hearing where Acoff alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by his attorney, Charles Berry.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that it may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders or certain interlocutory and collateral orders. The court found that the district court order was not final because it had not resolved all claims as to all parties. Specifically, the district court failed to address Acoff’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his attorney’s performance at the plea hearing. Consequently, the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015)
What it means going forward
The appeal is dismissed without a decision on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim. The case returns to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim, after which a final order may be issued for potential future appeal.